This One Issue Could Change Everything in 2020 ~ Ep. 1288 ~ The Dan Bongino Show®

From the Dan Bongino Show's description of this episode on youtube.com/Bongino or in his Show Notes:

In this episode, I address the catastrophic decision by this big city Mayor which could change everything. I also address what happened in the Supreme Court and how it will change the 2020 election.

Now that I've been doing this blogging about the Dan Bongino show on a daily basis, since February 1, 2020, and yes that was the first and most feeble one, it has become my "JUST ONE JOB," and I better not ever screw it up.  (Just kidding, actually.  I just like that line, "you had just one job.")  It has evolved quite a bit since that first one I posted five months ago.  I now have a format that I always use, and that makes it much easier to do.  It took quite a bit of experimentation to get it to where it is now.

Yes, I'm officially retired, and I don't do this for money.  No, Dan doesn't put a stack of cash in a garbage can for me to pick up, though he probably saw that happen back in the days at the 75th Precinct where he worked when he was with the NYPD.  No, there's no compensation.  Nor would I even expect it.  He probably doesn't even know I exist.  This project for me is not financially driven.  It is MISSION driven!  What do I mean by that?

In the very first segment (after he does the ad spots) in this episode, Dan talks about the 911 call that he had discussed in yesterday's show.  Little did Dan know it, but he gave me the rah-rah speech that kept me going today.  It was about not giving up the fight, because the Left wasn't going to, and they would continue to pummel our cabooses into oblivion, even if we tried to quit.  For us to quit, and give up, is just what the Left wants us to do.  We can't.  I can't, even though sometimes I get that feeling that I'm barely reaching anybody with my blogs and social media.  But then, I remember this one important thing:  It may be that one person I reach that does go make a difference.  Or it could be somebody that always votes Democrat that realizes the Demonicrats running large urban areas really don't care about our safety.  Like now, in New York City, where Mayor Bill DeBlasio is going to cut a billion dollars from the public safety budget.  What a clown!  If you don't think that matters, you haven't been watching Dan's show.

But, that's right, it may be just that one person that my blog reaches, that starts fighting back.  Somebody that has some influence.  It could be like the guy dancing in the park, and one guy joins him, which is all it took to bring everyone into the dancing! 

So, I just have one job.  Well, actually two:  Encourage somebody to get into the fight, and annoy liberals. 

Dan, just put the cash in a paper bag on top of the recycle cannister behind my house.

Be sure to see the

SHOW NOTES for Episode 1288

Watchdog: We'll seek Kagan's disbarment and impeachment

And now for a story you probably won't hear about anywhere else, except for possibly Fox News Channel. I'm not even sure if you will see the story there, either, judging by the way questions about Obama's Constitutional eligibility have been vanquished from the network. And as long as this story never makes it to any of the left-wing news networks or mainstream media, nobody will ever have any need to deal with it.

The question is this: If this story had come out before the vote yesterday, would Kagan have still been confirmed? Probably... She's a Progressive Democrat, and of course that would mean she's above the law. Just sayin'...

"It is bad enough when Bill Clinton lied under oath about Monica Lewisky, but Kagan's lying resulted in the deaths of human beings," Klayman told WND. "How much worse can it be?"

As WND reported, dozens of pro-life organizations previously asked the Senate to investigate Kagan's 1997 amendment to an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists report, which was then used by the Supreme Court as justification for overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000.

The perjury may have been committed when Kagan, during hearings in the Senate, said, "My only dealings with ACOG were about talking with them and how to ensure that their statement expressed their views."

Complaint alleges Obama's new Supreme Court appointee lied to Senate

Posted: August 06, 2010 ~ 12:55 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

New Supreme Court Justice,
Elena Kagan

A formal complaint has been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court asking that Elena Kagan – the bench's newest occupant – be disbarred, and an attorney who submitted the request for a criminal investigation into her statements said the effort will be expanded also to seek her impeachment, following the Senate's 63-37 approval of her appointment today.

"On behalf of Freedom Watch and Declaration Alliance, and as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court bar, I hereby file a complaint to disbar Elena Kagan from practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and for referral to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal investigation and for obstruction of justice," wrote Larry Klayman, president of Freedom Watch.

The letter was dispatched to Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito.

"In addition to disbarment, this matter should respectfully be referred to the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation of obstruction of justice and other related crimes," the letter said.

The letter said Kagan, while associate White House Counsel in the Clinton White House, "falsified a medical report of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG) in an intentional effort to mislead not just Congress and the White House concerning the efficacy and health risks of partial birth abortion, but also to mislead the various federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court which ultimately relied on this falsified medical report."

That came when the court struck down legislation restricting partial birth abortion, a gruesome procedure supported by Kagan that involves an abortionist partly delivery a live child, killing the child, and then finishing the delivery.

"This court relied in large part upon this falsified ACOG medical report to overturn Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban, which was then used as binding precedent among the circuits," Klayman wrote.

Klayman pointed out that the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide that "a lawyer who commits fraud in the conduct of business is subject to discipline for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."

"Clearly Elena Kagan's conduct in falsifying the ACOG report violates these Canons of the ABA code," Klayman said. "It was, at a minimum, reasonably foreseeable that her fraudulent changes to the ACOG report would ultimately be used by this court in its proceedings….

"This court must stand for the principle that 'no one is above the law.' If this is not the case, then 'We the People,' do not have a Supreme Court as envisioned and implemented by our founding fathers," Klayman's letter said. "Ms. Kagan cannot, and should not be treated differently than anyone else who deceives this court or any other court.

"She is thus unfit to remain a member of the court and should be disbarred from further representation before it. The issue of partial birth abortion, and the lives which it takes and affects, is too important than to allow a member of this court to pervert the medical findings of a body that is the expert in the field."

Declaration Alliance, Ambassador Alan Keyes' national pro-life organization, has joined in appealing for justice in the Kagan case. It noted the fact that Kagan altered a scientific analysis – inserting her own words – and then passed it off as a medical organization's analysis before the Supreme Court.

Klayman told WND today that the fact that Kagan now has been affirmed by the U.S. Senate means only that in addition to disbarment, the complaint will seek her impeachment.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The 'perpetual mediocrity' nominee ~ By Craige McMillan

By Craige McMillan Posted: July 16, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for a position on the United States Supreme Court is a clear case of "dumbing down" the nation's highest court for the often-orated but factually bereft "benefits" of "diversity." When George W. Bush was slapped down for his cronyism in the nomination of Harriet Miers for a position on the same court, he responded with a degree of humility and nominated John Roberts for the position. No one has accused Mr. Roberts of lacking the intellectual firepower needed for the position. No one has suggested that elements of his character would prevent sound judging. And no one has pointed out more intellectually qualified candidates whom the president could have nominated. Is that the case with Sonia Sotomayor? Or is it simply that Judge Sotomayor's main "qualifications" for a position on the nation's highest court are her sex, her race and the fact that in previous decisions she has ruled from the bench in favor of perpetual mediocrity (also known as affirmative action and racial set-asides)? She decided that the city of New Haven was right to ignore qualified white firefighters for promotion, simply because no blacks passed the test and qualified. Nice. A real color-blind society. That ruling was typical of the inbred affirmative action crowd, which has now seen its offspring come to positions of power in the media, government and academia. Their policies result, far more often than not, in promotion of the unprepared and unqualified to positions of power over those who "worked hard and played by the rules," as Bill Clinton described much of America. But that's what affirmative action is all about, isn't it? That isn't what affirmative action was about when it started. It was designed as a temporary measure to give blacks a "leg up" in a hostile job environment, after years of preparatory opportunities were denied to them. That quickly deteriorated into an entitlement mindset, especially among the privileged liberals who administered these programs. And the entitlement grew into the present "punish white America" mindset that we so often see among the failures and flunkies riding in the most prominent seats on the affirmative action bandwagon. Ward Connerly has it right. He knows that today's affirmative action is nothing more than blatant racial set-asides that hurt black America far more than they help it. And America knows it, too; his initiatives pass in elections, but they are evaded by the flunkies on the bandwagon, who are far more qualified to be cleaning toilets rather than operating centers of learning. [CONTINUE READING]

Supremes asked to cooperate with FBI ~ By Bob Unruh

Attorney investigating Obama's eligibility reports cyber attacks

By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily A lawyer investigating the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that the office be occupied only by a "natural born" citizen is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to cooperate with an FBI investigation into alleged cyber crimes connected to her work. In a letter addressed yesterday to Chief Justice John Roberts, the associate justices, the Secret Service and others, California lawyer Orly Taitz, who is working on a number of eligibility cases through the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, wrote, "I hope that the Supreme Court will show proper cooperation in investigation of such crimes by the FBI and other agencies and I request a letter of cooperation to that extent." Taitz is just one of many attorneys across the country whose clients are raising questions about Obama's eligibility. WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time. Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state. Taitz is one of several lawyers who have brought emergency motions to the U.S. Supreme Court over the cases, only to have them dropped without a hearing. While her effort was pending at the court, its references suddenly were scrubbed from the public website just two days before a conference among justices on the case was to be heard. She filed a complaint with the FBI, which promised a review, but the investigative agency noted that in that situation, technically the Supreme Court was the "victim" of having its website hacked, and officials there would need to cooperate for the effort to move forward. [Continue reading]

digg story ~ Submitted by SamMcPhy

Chief justice publicly accepts Obama eligibility petition - By Drew Zahn

Attorney Orly Taitz talks to Roberts, who agrees to read Obama-birth docs By Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily March 14, 2009 A California attorney lobbying the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president confronted the chief justice yesterday with legal briefs and a WND petition bearing names of over 325,000 people asking the court to rule on whether or not the sitting president fulfills the Constitution's "natural-born citizen" clause. According to Orly Taitz, the attorney who confronted Chief Justice John Roberts at a lecture at the University of Idaho, the judge promised before the gathered crowd that he would, indeed, read and review the briefs and petition. "I addressed him in front of 800 people in the audience," Taitz told WND, "including university officials, the president of the Idaho State Bar and the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Idaho, and in front of all them, [Roberts] promised to read my papers." Roberts was lecturing on Abraham Lincoln to approximately 1,200 attendees of the annual Bellwood Memorial Lecture Series at the Moscow, Idaho, university. Roberts has been chief justice of the Supreme Court since his nomination by President George W. Bush and subsequent confirmation in 2005. Earlier in the week, Taitz confronted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who told her the issue of Obama's eligibility, which has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times but has yet to be given a single hearing, still lacked the votes of the required four justices in conference before it would be officially heard. Taitz said, "I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency." The legal phrase Quo Warranto essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents." [Continue reading]

digg story ~ Submitted by AstralKnight

Why oath was retaken - by Joseph Farah

When Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and President Barack Obama flubbed the oath of office on inauguration day, WND was pilloried for noting the problem. Yet, one day later, Roberts and Obama agreed to repeat the oath of office. They took that part of the Constitution seriously, but why not the part about being a "natural born citizen"?

read more | digg story